At just under 40 minutes, the Schubert D Major sonata (the late A and B-flat major sonatas are perhaps comparable length) is one of the longest and most difficult of Schubert's piano works (maybe second to the Wanderer-Fantasy in that regard). It is also IMHO one of his loftiest and most noble achievements, challenging the Unfinished and 9th Symphonies (though of course no piano piece could ever approach those). One thing that distinguishes this among Schubert's other sonatas is its consistently fast tempos and hairy passagework. The majority of Schubert's sonatas have more moderato markings, particularly for the first movement. The first and third movements of the D major sonata are allegro vivace, the last is an allegro moderato (though the underlying metrical pulse is quite fast for a moderato), and even the slow movement is a "con moto" -- interesting that Schubert doesn't mark it "andante con moto" as one might expect; my thought was that he may have intended it to be halfway in between an andante and an allegretto and couldn't decide One thing more I'd say about the con moto is that it's for reasons like the epic vastness of that movement that Schubert is my favorite composer.

I worked pretty damn hard on this, but of course time is always limited, so there are certainly a few fluffs or passages that could be further polished here and there. Unlike some other larger-scale pieces I have planned, this one is new for me (started learning it at the beginning of this year). It's one that I'll probably perform live for a few friends down the road. In terms of specific difficulties, I guess I'd just say that for me there are few passages as awkward as those double arpeggios in the first movement or as tiring as the dotted rhythms in double notes in the third movement (which I didn't always get as pointed as I would have liked).

I guess I was fairly happy with the result, though, since it's the biggest piece I have yet recorded and I tried to be pretty "no holds barred" about the music, taking the allegro vivaces at a pretty fast clip and trying to get the frenzy out of them. In most instances, I chose not to try to edit out little things that happened (movements 2-4, in fact, are unedited complete takes, with only one edit in the first movement), since I felt that might take away from the music's impetuousness, scope, and continuity, which has very few breaks. In any event, whether I ultimately succeeded or not, I just think this music is unbelievable. Schubert just has such a wide range of moods in his music, from raging fury to feminine waltzing daintiness to vast mountain landscapes to deep melancholy to heroism in battle to philosophical reflection to elfinness -- IMHO this piece has it all.

Anyway, thanks very much for listening, and I hope you will find this a good addition to the site (there are no other performances yet).

It is not my preferred Schubert but I am much impressed by your performance. It is well recorded but because of the room or the microphones placement or inadequate (to my ears) post processing, it is much too bass heavy. I would have preferred some thing like the attached file.

A veritable tour de force, to have done nearly every movement in just one take each.

This is pretty well played too, particularly in the way you bring out the variety of all those different moods which you mentioned.

I found the quality of some of the softer sections of the 3rd movement especially delightful, as they contrast in an almost over-the-top "effeminate" manner to the more assertive versions of the same material. I refer here to places like 0:55, 6:03, and especially 6:46 and 7:55.

What quibbles I have relate (perhaps predictably) to rhythm, where for my taste the liberties you take with rubato are excessive for Schubert. I'm not sure whether these liberties are fully intentional or "just happened" subconsciously. I'm talking about both the 3rd and 2nd movements.

Taking the 3rd movement first, are you deliberately introducing viennese-waltz-style asymmetry here by delaying beats? This happens in many places where pairs of bars (in 3/4) are linked together by having chords tied over the bar lines (thus in effect creating 3/2 bars - what a coincidence that these were just being discussed in the "Technique" forum). You are noticeably delaying the second beats of these "3/2 bars", but you only do it where the first beat is a pure half-note chord without anything else happening during that beat before the next chord. Although not quite apparent right at the beginning, it happens for example in the sections from 0:17 or 0:38. On the other hand, when something else does happen during the first beat half note, for example at 0:55, where the 3/2 pulse comes only in the right hand while the left hand has a steady stream of quarter-notes, then your rhythm remains straight.

You are taking similar liberties in the 2nd movement. This time it is apparent right at the beginning; in many of the first few bars which start with a dotted quarter-note chord, you hold this chord for nearly four eighths instead of three, occasionally even for five. This practice might be excusable if used sparingly, as if reading implied fermatas into the text, but I feel you're doing it too often.

It is not my preferred Schubert but I am much impressed by your performance. It is well recorded but because of the room or the microphones placement or inadequate (to my ears) post processing, it is much too bass heavy. I would have preferred some thing like the attached file.

Thanks, Didier. Your version does sound better. What EQ settings and program did you use? I of course know beans about post-processing, though I am quite happy with the overall performance of my new mics (The AKG 414s). I know I should experiment more with EQ, I'm just not very tech-savvy

Hello, rainer. Where have you been anyway? This is (ahem) my fourth post of late.

Quote:

This is pretty well played too, particularly in the way you bring out the variety of all those different moods which you mentioned.

I found the quality of some of the softer sections of the 3rd movement especially delightful, as they contrast in an almost over-the-top "effeminate" manner to the more assertive versions of the same material. I refer here to places like 0:55, 6:03, and especially 6:46 and 7:55.

Thanks for noticing that, that was actually one of the spots I had in mind when writing my above purple prose

Quote:

What quibbles I have relate (perhaps predictably) to rhythm, where for my taste the liberties you take with rubato are excessive for Schubert. I'm not sure whether these liberties are fully intentional or "just happened" subconsciously. I'm talking about both the 3rd and 2nd movements.

I do respectfully disagree with your comment about rubato and Schubert. Well really with any composer, for that matter. I don't think rubato is a no-no in Schubert any more than it is in Bach, Haydn, etc. In fact, if anything Schubert, being the archetypal romantic, should be quite free, especially in the slower movements. Of course one must, as Callas said, "straightjacket" and know the rhythms in the beginning, playing them exactly in time when one is learning a piece, but after that it must be free and spontaneous. I'm probably being cheeky here, but I say you should live a little Music might be derived from mathematical proportions, but it isn't math. If it were, it would be deadly boring.

Yes, I am indeed. This is, in fact, the gesture I believe Schubert is going for here. The piece is a quick, tongue-in-cheek Viennese Waltz of sorts (of course being a scherzo in 3/4 time helps with that). That intentional lilt especially becomes obvious about 10 bars into the second section in the pp section with that more characteristically 1-2-3 bass.

Thanks for listening. Even if we may not always agree, I appreciate your consistently taking the time to listen to my playing. Takes almost as much courage to listen to this beast of a piece as it does to play it

for my taste the liberties you take with rubato are excessive for Schubert.

I don't think rubato is a no-no in Schubert any more than it is in Bach, Haydn, etc. In fact, if anything Schubert, being the archetypal romantic, should be quite free, especially in the slower movements.

On second thought, I should perhaps have omitted the words "for Schubert". I quite agree that rubato is entirely appropriate here, and only meant to indicate that I simply felt you used too much of it.

Quote:

Music might be derived from mathematical proportions, but it isn't math. If it were, it would be deadly boring.

Far be it from me to suggest that this music should be played metronomically. That would lend a sameness to it which can indeed get boring, so we must have flexibility. But we must also be flexible in our application of that flexibility, otherwise it is in danger of acquiring a sameness of its own. I would beware of emphasizing a feature every time it occurs.

Quote:

Quote:

are you deliberately introducing viennese-waltz-style asymmetry here by delaying beats?

Yes, I am indeed.

Good. I should have known it wasn't down to carelessness. Sorry I even asked.

Quote:

Takes almost as much courage to listen to this beast of a piece as it does to play it

Joe,Great job and great recording.I'm not familiar with the work and wanted to have something intelligent to say, so I followed the fourth movement with the score.Again, very good. Allow me one picky note:7 measures before the last return to tempo, there is an A7 chord on a whole note in the right hand that I think needs a little more emphasis. This chord has been played as an 8th note a couple of times and the phrase needs the emphasis to be really rounded. (Same thing for the same chord two measures before that, as a half note.)That late in the movement it might be just "one of those things that happens", but it's the only contribution I could make.Congratulations.

The Gasteiner is, IMO, how a piano sonata by Bruckner might have sounded - although I am no great fan of Bruckner, and find Schubert the more resourceful composer. I had not played this sonata for many years and upon returning to it yesterday evening it seemed longer than ever Yes it is both more expansive and more challenging than the more famous "big late three". It needs a very special combination of virtuosity, serenity and stamina. You need to be in the precisely right mind frame to pull this one off. Whether you are altogether successful here, I am not sure, even though it is some achievement to record this huge piece. I find it all rather hurried and hard-driven. Your high tempi make for more road kill than would be necessary. You seem to do best in the more lyrical passages (though I find your take on the trio of the Rondo just a bit schmaltzy). To record vast stretches like in one take without editing is very risky, and I am not sure the result is better for it. I'd like to see you get back to this sonata in the future, at the moment there seems to be too much 'angry young man' in the performance. Despite all the virtuosity and brisk tempi, this is very much a lyrical and classical sonata, I feel. Or else I'm getting old

Some assorted nits;- Your occasional (half-)arpeggios seem out of style.- I could not make sense of your rhythm in the 2nd movement. If this was meant as rubato (which I'm not against perse) it has gone too far.- Your dotted figures in the 3rd mvt are sloppy. Yes, it's tiring there, but then take it a bit slower. This entire movement sounds rather blustery.- There are numerous rushes throughout the place, like in the final bars of the 4th mvt.

While the original recording was rather too bass heavy, Didier's version sounds rather to thin (though maybe more authentic). The truth would be somewhere in the middle.

Joe,Great job and great recording.I'm not familiar with the work and wanted to have something intelligent to say, so I followed the fourth movement with the score.Again, very good. Allow me one picky note:7 measures before the last return to tempo, there is an A7 chord on a whole note in the right hand that I think needs a little more emphasis. This chord has been played as an 8th note a couple of times and the phrase needs the emphasis to be really rounded. (Same thing for the same chord two measures before that, as a half note.)That late in the movement it might be just "one of those things that happens", but it's the only contribution I could make.Congratulations.

Thanks, Stu. Interesting point about the A7 chord. I'll check that out for the future.

Thanks, Chris. And good points as usual. I'm not sure I'm in agreement on a couple of them, but they are certainly good talking points.

Quote:

To record vast stretches like in one take without editing is very risky, and I am not sure the result is better for it.

True, though I like to live dangerously One minor point of clarification: I didn't mean to imply these were done in one take, only that movements 2-4 were complete takes that were unedited. I did, as usual, about 4 or 5 takes of each movement, but then since I had complete ones, chose to use those despite the imperfections rather than sit at my computer and start fussing over it. The complete takes still sound more spontaneous to my ears.

I would maintain my position I've argued before that there's just too much editing going on in performances these days. Risk-taking is part of the fun of music making, even if it doesn't always come out the way we want, and I believe performances should sound spontaneous and edgy even if they aren't totally polished. So many professional discs these days sound, to my ears, sterile, cautious, and disjointed, and I think it's because longer pieces are sometimes joined together from 30 or so takes so that it no longer even sounds like the artist any more. Ah well, it seems only David agrees with me about this

Quote:

Despite all the virtuosity and brisk tempi, this is very much a lyrical and classical sonata, I feel

Lyrical in places, yes, though I'm not sure I agree it's very "classical" (the E-flat Major I did a couple of years ago is more like that). The Gasteiner is, I think, principally swashbuckling and proto-romantic. Just my opinion of course.

Quote:

Your occasional (half-)arpeggios seem out of style.

Hmm, interesting, but I'm not sure where you're looking here. Do you mean the arpeggios in the first movement? Out of style how?

Quote:

I could not make sense of your rhythm in the 2nd movement. If this was meant as rubato (which I'm not against perse) it has gone too far.

True, maybe I did go over the top here. I was less satisfied with my first page than when the music got going.

Quote:

- Your dotted figures in the 3rd mvt are sloppy. Yes, it's tiring there, but then take it a bit slower. This entire movement sounds rather blustery.

I do think this is the right tempo, though a hair slower could be in order too. While I'm not sure I agree they were "sloppy," some of them could be more precise, no question. Do I want it to sound blustery? Not sure. I think "impetuous" is more how I would see it.

Quote:

- There are numerous rushes throughout the place, like in the final bars of the 4th mvt.

In the final bars of the fourth movement, I intended an accelerando, though I may have gone over the top on this one too. I wanted to get a sort of spritely effect here (used the soft pedal and took it briskly), though maybe it didn't quite work and was too much.

Well anyway, you do make some excellent points, particularly on the details. While I stand behind my principal conception of the work, there's certainly much room for polish in places. While ideally it will take a matter of years probably to fuilly sink in, I may record another version very soon (since practicing it the other day, already I think it is sinking into my reflexes better), so I may be annoying you with a replacement soon.

I would maintain my position I've argued before that there's just too much editing going on in performances these days. Risk-taking is part of the fun of music making, even if it doesn't always come out the way we want, and I believe performances should sound spontaneous and edgy even if they aren't totally polished. So many professional discs these days sound, to my ears, sterile, cautious, and disjointed, and I think it's because longer pieces are sometimes joined together from 30 or so takes so that it no longer even sounds like the artist any more. Ah well, it seems only David agrees with me about this

Rather than using multiple takes, I like to correct a stupid little slip on the spot and then cut out the (small) wrong part. I do not think this impacts the quality. But let's not go there again - life is too short

jlr43 wrote:

Lyrical in places, yes, though I'm not sure I agree it's very "classical" (the E-flat Major I did a couple of years ago is more like that). The Gasteiner is, I think, principally swashbuckling and proto-romantic. Just my opinion of course.

Maybe so ! Still, no call for Lisztian barnstorming - just my opinion of course .

jlr43 wrote:

Hmm, interesting, but I'm not sure where you're looking here. Do you mean the arpeggios in the first movement? Out of style how?

On several occasions you roll chords. There's one almost at the beginning, and several later on. It may be something you do spontaneously. I call it out of style because it's not written and I have never heard it (but that doesn't say much).

jlr43 wrote:

I do think this is the right tempo, though a hair slower could be in order too. While I'm not sure I agree they were "sloppy," some of them could be more precise, no question. Do I want it to sound blustery? Not sure. I think "impetuous" is more how I would see it.

It would be the right tempo, if only you were not making it too difficult on yourself, sacrificing clarity and crispness to impetus. And of course, anything less than precise is sloppy (what's in a name ? you would tell me exactly the same, I'm sure ).

Quote:

- There are numerous rushes throughout the place, like in the final bars of the 4th mvt.

jlr43 wrote:

While ideally it will take a matter of years probably to fuilly sink in, I may record another version very soon (since practicing it the other day, already I think it is sinking into my reflexes better), so I may be annoying you with a replacement soon.

I believe you're never ready to record a piece until you've recorded it. And even then

Hmm, well, as one who works with words for a living, I might take issue with your usage there, or at least clarify... Wouldn't it be "Anything less than precise is imperfect?" There are degrees of precision, after all. Sloppy seems like a pretty low degree, but maybe that's what mine was.

Quote:

I believe you're never ready to record a piece until you've recorded it. And even then

Excellent point, I couldn't agree more. I think it's partly because recording now has to substitute for a real teacher, and it's especially true on big pieces like this. Many of the points you mentioned my former teacher would have rapped my knuckles for, I'm sure -- and maybe dropped a few expletives in French:P

I had wanted to listen to a Schubert sonata for a pretty long time, though I had kept putting it off. Your recording is probably the first time I've listened to a major work from Schubert, so I have you to thank for that!

As for the playing, I enjoyed the first, third and fourth movements; especially the somewhat contemplative trio in the scherzo which you pulled off quite nicely. The second movement I have to agree with Chris that the rubato is too excessive, almost to the point of perpetual staggering at points, which was distracting. You also seem to speed through some of the parts where I expected you to linger (e.g 8:29 - 8:40 of the second movement). Lastly, I find the accelerando at the end of the rondo to be a nice touch, though it needs to be more subtle there.

Great job with the recording nonetheless. I'm quite impressed at the variety of the moods in the piece that you have mentioned, despite the seeming transparency of the themes and the musical language in general, almost free of long-term anxieties. Perhaps those times were simpler times.

had wanted to listen to a Schubert sonata for a pretty long time, though I had kept putting it off. Your recording is probably the first time I've listened to a major work from Schubert, so I have you to thank for that!

As for the playing, I enjoyed the first, third and fourth movements; especially the somewhat contemplative trio in the scherzo which you pulled off quite nicely. The second movement I have to agree with Chris that the rubato is too excessive, almost to the point of perpetual staggering at points, which was distracting. You also seem to speed through some of the parts where I expected you to linger (e.g 8:29 - 8:40 of the second movement). Lastly, I find the accelerando at the end of the rondo to be a nice touch, though it needs to be more subtle there.

Great job with the recording nonetheless. I'm quite impressed at the variety of the moods in the piece that you have mentioned, despite the seeming transparency of the themes and the musical language in general, almost free of long-term anxieties. Perhaps those times were simpler times.

Thanks for listening, Affinity! Well I guess that settles it; the second movement was everyone's least favorite And it's my favorite of the four movements, so that won't do. Maybe that's why it didn't come out quite right; I was perhaps a bit too over-zealous in applying romanticism to it. I think I will have another go at this in another couple of weeks, focusing particularly on the rhythm in the second movement and taking the outer tempi just a hair slower.

Hmm, well, as one who works with words for a living, I might take issue with your usage there, or at least clarify... Wouldn't it be "Anything less than precise is imperfect?" There are degrees of precision, after all. Sloppy seems like a pretty low degree, but maybe that's what mine was.

As one who works with words, I'll let you have the last one Just as long as you admit they could - and should - be better. They're a bit, well er, flabby (a nice term you coined at my playing once).

As one who works with words, I'll let you have the last one Just as long as you admit they could - and should - be better. They're a bit, well er, flabby (a nice term you coined at my playing once).

Honest to God, Chris I was only kidding around. I'm not sure why you always have to turn something nasty or make it confrontational. Isn't it a bit contradictory to say that you're letting me have the last word and then have your own last word anyway? Anyway, this is my party, er, post, so it seems the originator generally does and should have the last word (as you generally do on yours). Be that as it may, I do think you sometimes need to read more carefully (reading seems a bit of a lost art these days). I was the first one to admit that they should be better. See my words above: "as tiring as the dotted rhythms in double notes in the third movement (which I didn't always get as pointed as I would have liked)" and in response to you: "some of them could be more precise, no question." Maybe you should try recording a piece this long and difficult in the standard repertory instead of this twiddling fluff few people have heard of, and work this hard on something, and then if you do better, I'd be the first to see it.

Thanks for posting this. It is not a piece I am very familiar with but after hearing your interpretation it has been ringing in my head for some days. I am particularly impressed with the sheer energy and vitality of the first movement. Your approach reminds me of Schnabel (I don't know if he recorded this particular sonata though) in putting an overall conception and emotive output first. It means details are occasionally sacrificed but makes the music much more interesting - the danger of this piece is it can sound dull, but certainly not in your hands. A Bravo from me!

In the second movement I am enchanted by the way you keep the melody singing above the nicely voiced chords - in particular if this is a single take it shows an extraordinary concentration to sustain it so long. At the same time I had a strange feeling that the small phrases did not always connect and that the longer lines were not kept together. Somehow this impedes the flow. Reading the discussion I think rainer put the finger on it: you hold the chords of the phrase endings too long. I do understand that you want to create a contrast with the outer movements and for the first minutes it did not really bother me, but doing this throughout some overall coherence is lost. Whether that is an acceptable tradeoff in order to get a more dreamy quality is a matter of taste. Certainly this is a valid experiment. If you go against normal performance practice of a well-known piece you should expect some criticism - but if you are convinced this is what you want it to sound like that's what you should do!

I am particularly impressed with the sheer energy and vitality of the first movement. Your approach reminds me of Schnabel (I don't know if he recorded this particular sonata though) in putting an overall conception and emotive output first.

Thanks for the flattering comparison. Yes, Schnabel did record this sonata (I believe it's on Youtube), and he does many wonderfully creative things with sound on it. Overall, perhaps, his Schubert is not my favorite, though, since sometimes it seems lacking in rhythmic tightness (a lot of overall tempo vacillation). I suppose if I had any model for this music, it would be Richter. I love his performance of this piece, though my overall conception of it is quite different. In any event, I think you've hit the nail on the head by citing an old pianist like Schnabel (who I guess was one of the first to set Schubert sonatas to disc), because when I listen to modern people (e.g., Uchida, Schiff, Lupu, Andsnes) play this music, I don't hear an interpretation at all. I hear, as Horowitz once said, them practicing it for the 100th time.

Quote:

It means details are occasionally sacrificed but makes the music much more interesting

Yes, there are so many details here, it can drive one crazy. Not that every detail isn't important, too; those things tend to be easier to improve when one has lived with the music longer, as I probably need to do with this one.

Quote:

At the same time I had a strange feeling that the small phrases did not always connect and that the longer lines were not kept together. Somehow this impedes the flow. Reading the discussion I think rainer put the finger on it: you hold the chords of the phrase endings too long. I do understand that you want to create a contrast with the outer movements and for the first minutes it did not really bother me, but doing this throughout some overall coherence is lost. Whether that is an acceptable tradeoff in order to get a more dreamy quality is a matter of taste. Certainly this is a valid experiment. If you go against normal performance practice of a well-known piece you should expect some criticism - but if you are convinced this is what you want it to sound like that's what you should do!

Interesting observation, and I agree with you completely. While I do think Chris and rainer had valid points here, I was indeed trying to elicit a dreamier atmosphere from this one (to contrast against the power and steel of the first movement in particular). But I also acknowledge that it was probably too much and believe that your comment about the lines makes very good sense. I think it's often better to experiment, as you say, and then rein in later, rather than the other way around.

I've listened to it in its entirety, but I'll restrict comments to the outer movements which I used to play. Firstly, to get through all this at this level of accuracy with just one edit is quite something! Especially taking the first movement at that pace. There are a few odd points in the passagework which are a little untidy but nothing that jumps out as objectionably so. The only real problem I have with the first movement is that I think you are not making enough of dynamic contrasts in the first movement and thus missing the p/f dialogue aspect, in particular on the first couple of pages. Other than that, it is really very good.

The last movement starts with a very nice sense of caprice. Overall it was welcome (a passing thought went through my head that the movement was in the wrong place in the sonata!) because throughout the sonata I do slightly incline to Chris's comments about angry young man and impetuosity - a question of taste of course. That being said, the passage from bar 144 is very beautifully and intimately played.

Congratulations on a fine performance which must have taken a lot of work.

I've listened to it in its entirety, but I'll restrict comments to the outer movements which I used to play. Firstly, to get through all this at this level of accuracy with just one edit is quite something! Especially taking the first movement at that pace. There are a few odd points in the passagework which are a little untidy but nothing that jumps out as objectionably so. The only real problem I have with the first movement is that I think you are not making enough of dynamic contrasts in the first movement and thus missing the p/f dialogue aspect, in particular on the first couple of pages. Other than that, it is really very good.

The last movement starts with a very nice sense of caprice. Overall it was welcome (a passing thought went through my head that the movement was in the wrong place in the sonata!) because throughout the sonata I do slightly incline to Chris's comments about angry young man and impetuosity - a question of taste of course. That being said, the passage from bar 144 is very beautifully and intimately played.

Congratulations on a fine performance which must have taken a lot of work.

Thanks for the comments, Andrew! I agree with all the points about the details you have brought up. Indeed, the last movement does seem rather out of place in this sonata, it being more of a lilting Viennese dance set compared with the firestorming, heroic first movement and barging scherzo. I would still argue that the first and third movements call for a bit of devil-may-care impetuosity, but bringing out more of the dynamics as you mentioned may help bring the heroic stuff into greater focus as well.

You sound very professional. The energy and spirit of the first movement, the romanticism of the second, the interesting accented rhythmic motif of the third with the slightly dramatic surrounding story unfolding are effective. I think the third movment has greater lyricism in the playing than the first two IMHO. You bring out enchantment in the fourth movement. The tone in the fourth movement reveals a deeper relaxation in the playing and the focus of sound is very luminous at times with a very enjoyable lyricism. Frankly, the fourth movement has the best tonal quality of all the movements in this performance in my view. It is gem like. I would just recommend being a tad stricter in keeping the tempo in the last movement.

You sound very professional. The energy and spirit of the first movement, the romanticism of the second, the interesting accented rhythmic motif of the third with the slightly dramatic surrounding story unfolding are effective. I think the third movment has greater lyricism in the playing than the first two IMHO. You bring out enchantment in the fourth movement. The tone in the fourth movement reveals a deeper relaxation in the playing and the focus of sound is very luminous at times with a very enjoyable lyricism. Frankly, the fourth movement has the best tonal quality of all the movements in this performance in my view. It is gem like. I would just recommend being a tad stricter in keeping the tempo in the last movement.

Thank you for sharing this amazing piece.

Kaila Rochelle

Thanks very much, Kaila! Totally agreed about the tempo in the last movement; the accelerando toward the end was an experiment that went slightly awry

Sorry to be a PITA, but could you replace the version on the site with these files (I already warned Chris it was coming )? I had originally thought I might do a re-recording of this, but that's not really logistically possible now, so I decided to do a bit of editing to round off the disc I am making and try to make this as good as it can be for now. For those who might consider listening again, here's a brief summary of what's different:

Movement 1: Edit to replace from the beginning of the recap to the end.

Movement 2: Edit together from two takes for musical reasons, where I think I did more what I wanted to do musically with the first 2/3 of a different take.

Movement 3: This is a completely different take, and essentially a complete one, except for the last 20 seconds or so to take out a small flub at the end. The dotted rhythms still certainly aren't perfect in this one, but I think they many of them came off better (I probably should have ended the session with this take rather than do another one, which was the one I originally used).

Movement 4: Mostly the same, except for two minor approximately five-second edits to take out a dropped note and flub.

Anyway, sorry for the inconvenience and my foolishness not to reflect more on this when I originally did it. Also, thanks again to everyone for their helpful feedback on this piece, which I will consider as I further prepare it (for an upcoming recital for some friends).

Hi Joe,Finally listened to this great effort (and accomplishment) of yours. I hope you know what I mean when I say that I could just turn it on and enjoy listening to it. I felt like I was well entertained at a recital. Sometimes your management of time at formal bounderies (large and small) or your use of rhetoric is not what I might do -- but that's why we have different names. Your performace was very satisfying, and I salute you for the fine result of all your hard work. As I listened I couldn't help appreciating some of this work's kinship with Beethoven. For me I heard in the passage work strains of the Op.53 1st movement. If you've played this, what do you think?

_________________Eddy M. del Rio, MD"A smattering will not do. They must know all the keys, major and minor, and they must literally 'know them backwards.'" - Josef Lhevinne

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum